The Democratic Progressive Party recently held a protest march. Its banners read "No to Tainted Products! Defend Taiwan!" and "No to China! Down with Ma!" But on the columns to which these banners were fastened, one sign read "Defend Chen Complex," and the other "Anti-Communist Thought." The Democratic Progressive Party believes it has demonstrated its ability to mobilize supporters. In fact it has revealed its blind spots.

Chen Shui-bian is a scandal-ridden former head of state. Yet he was he invited to march in the front ranks of the October 25 protest. Key DPP members and grassroots supporters fell over each other fighting for the chance to be photographed with him. To the vast majority on Taiwan, the images were chock full of irony. For standing beneath banners reading "No to Tainted Products!" was none other than the most "Tainted Product" of all. Lacking either the will or the way to engage in desperately needed soul-searching, the DPP could only rail hysterically against sundry tainted products from across the Strait. The DPP not only took the easy way out, it also put the cart before the horse.

The march highlighted Chen Shui-bian's return to power. It also marked the Democratic Progressive Party's return to violence. Wang Ting-yu's attack against Zhang Mingqing at the Confucian Temple and Kuan Pi-ling's attack against Hung Hsiu-chu in the legislature show that the DPP has already veered back towards demagoguery and violence. This can hardly be considered a positive development, either inside or outside the party. Particularly noteworthy is how the Democratic Progressive Party seized on the contaminated milk powder issue in its anti-China campaign. It made no effort to discuss the issues. Apart from trying to cut itself off from the Mainland and instilling hatred against our compatriots, the Democratic Progressive Party offers no viable long term alternative for cross-strait relations.

The DPP is unable to make a clean break with Ah-Bian. Chen's supporters say they are upholding high-minded principles. They say they value "friendship." This is truly mind-boggling. If a modern day political party can't even distinguish between what is public and private, how can it preside over what is public and private? No matter how many people within the party were Chen Shui-bian's beneficiaries, these are private matters. In the face of the nation and society, political parties must uphold higher principles of justice. If they disregard right and wrong and talk only of "friendship," then the Democratic Progressive Party has been reduced to an Ah-Bian Fan Club.

Chen's supporters probably do not constitute a majority. So why is the DPP so easily dominated by such a minority? The main reason is the Democratic Progressive Party has been unable to alter its radical nature. As an opposition party the Democratic Progressive Party often had to resort to radical means to cope with the ruling KMT. It eventually won victory after victory. Unfortunately it was unable to change even after becoming the ruling party. It long ago succumbed to extreme views within the party. This led to the party line diverging significantly from mainstream public opinion. This eventually led to a loss of power and the loss of years of accumulated political assets. Yet the DPP remains under the sway of a small number of people on the radical fringe, who have taken the entire party hostage.

Just look at the Democratic Progressive Party's "anti-China" strategy. After eight years of being played for all it is worth, its policy has run into a brick wall. Logically speaking it ought to adjust its strategy. Unfortunately, no new thinking is allowed within the DPP. All anyone hears is the same tired "Green Camp Anti-Communist Thought." Early day anti-communist thought on Taiwan was based on the global backdrop of the Cold War. The KMT stood head to head with the CCP on the front lines, firing real bullets. But the Cold War is over. Millions of people travel back and forth across the Strait each year. Even the United States has said that in the wake of the global financial crisis the engine of the global economy will be Mainland China. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party is still shouting "Hate China!" slogans. Even more ridiculous is how the Democratic Progressive Party's anti-China strategy is being used not against the Chinese Communist Party, but against Ma Ying-jeou, to divide Taiwan. During the Red Shirt Army protests Shih Ming-teh was denounced as a "Chi-Com fellow traveler." Today Ma Ying-jeou is being denounced as a "traitor to Taiwan." The DPP's "anti-China" policy is apparently purely for domestic consumption.

How exactly does the Democratic Progressive Party want to relate to Mainland China? Is it rejecting any and all cross-Strait exchanges? If so, to what extent? The Chiang/Chen Meeting has proposed four major policy changes relating to direct shipping and direct flights. Why hasn't the Democratic Progressive Party uttered one word of criticism? When something like the contaminated powdered milk incident occurs, how exactly are consumers and manufacturers on Taiwan supposed to fight for their rights and their interests without negotiating with the other side?

The Ma administration's cross-Strait policy needs oversight of course. Mainland threats against Taiwan must be countered. But these require careful handling. If the DPP invokes its "Nation of Taiwan" merely to avoid dealing with cross-Strait issues; if it shouts "Arrest Communist Bandit Chen Yunlin!" merely to threaten the Chiang/Chen Meeting, will that offer Taiwan a way out? The chairmen of the seven major industrial and commercial organizations support of cross-Strait exchanges. They support the Chiang/Chen Meeting. If the Democratic Progressive Party stubbornly insists that their support is merely a "false impression," which side of history is it standing on?

Chen Shui-bian is the DPP's standard-bearer. Wangding Yu is the DPP's hero, the man who pushed Zhang Mingqing to the ground. The DPP opposes the Chiang/Chen Meeting. The DPP opposes Taiwan's industrial and commercial organizations. The DPP holds high the banner of the "Nation of Taiwan." Are we to understand that this is the DPP's cross-Strait policy?

Chen Shui-bian's crimes are too numerous to count. Can justice be restored in his wake? One. He must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Two. He must be subjected to the judgment of society, thereby establishing standards for right and wrong.

Given Chen Shui-bian's mortal sins, the judgment of society should be harsher than the judgment of the courts. The judgment of the courts will be borne only by the Chen Shui-bian family. The judgment of society will become an indelible part of the nation's political heritage.

Political monsters such as Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong did not live long enough to be subjected to legal judgments or legal punishments. They have however been subjected to the judgments of society and the judgment of historians. Such judgments help heal society's wounds, and are essential to rehabilitate society. Nazism is subject to both legal and social sanctions in today's Germany. Mao Zedong was never legally prosecuted. But he has been subjected to severe moral condemnation, both inside and outside China. Only an unflinching assessment of political monsters such as these can reestablish society's moral standards and leave a correct historical verdict. Only then can Germany be reborn. Only then can mainland China go forward. Only then can civilization progress.

How should Taiwan deal with political monster Chen Shui-bian? One. The legal aspect. The State Affairs Expenses scandal erupted three years ago. Chen Shui-bian lost his immunity from criminal prosecution on May 20, over five months ago. But he has yet be charged. Two. The social aspect. Chen Shui-bian has been running about seeking political support. On October 25 he was greeted by demonstrators at Jingfu Men, shouting "Ah-Bian, Way to Go!" What sort of moral judgment is this? What sort of contempt for right and wrong is this?

If Chen Shui-bian's combination of phony Taiwan independence and genuine corruption results in this political confidence man marching into prison with his head held high, as the "Standard Bearer of Taiwan Independence," then what has become of justice?

When the overseas money-laundering case first erupted, we made several recommendations. One. Take Chen Shui-bian into custody. Two. Examine Public Prosecutor Eric Chen's case files on the State Expenses scandal. Proceed with the trial, but continue investigating. Based on the nature of the case, on legal procedures, and on legal practices, the Special Investigative Unit had sufficient grounds to arrest and detain Chen. Alas, the Special Investigative Unit settled on doing nothing. The case snowballed until it became more and more difficult to resolve. As long as their investigative and prosecutorial strategy conforms to the law, prosecutors should choose the path that minimizes the cost to society. The strategy the Special Investigative Unit chose has led investigators up a blind alley, It has made it more difficut to indemnify society. It has been a complete bust.

Over the past few months Chen Shui-bian has spent over 100 million NT rallying political support. On October 25, Chen Shui-bian appeared in public without a bullet-proof vest, even though hundreds of police officers were forced to wear them. Whither proportionality? Whither justice?

The Special Investigative Unit says it does not consider politics, that it only cares only about the law. Really? Then why did it allow the August 30 protest march to delay its interrogation of Chen Shui-bian? Why didn't it hold the interrogation as originally scheduled? Why did it allow Chen Yunlin's visit to delay its interrogation of Chen family members? The Special Investigative Unit said "the former president must be treated with respect." What is this, but considering politics? Otherwise, why have Yu Cheng-hsien and Chen Ming-wen been arrested, while Chen Shui-bian remains free as a bird? What's worse, Chen Shui-bian has taken advantage of the latitude given him to accuse the Special Investigative Unit of conducting a political vendetta, . and to recast himself as the "Standard Bearer of Taiwan Independence." Shouldn't the Special Investigative Unit be concerned about how it determines its legal strategy? After all, the Special Investigative Unit should be more than a bunch of legal hacks. If the Special Investigative Unit must consider extraneous issues whiled investigating Chen Shui-bian, it will provide Chen Shui-bian with maneuveuring room. It will undermine right and wrong. Is this really what the Special Investigative Unit has in mind?

The Special Investigative Unit must handle all cases in accordance with the law. No exceptions. But they have many options at their disposal. The Special Investigative Unit should ensure justice even while minimizing the cost to society. The political climate on Taiwan today has allowed Chen Shui-bian to come back to life, even as it has sentenced the DPP to death. Society is again threatened by divisions. People feel is slipping out of their grasp. The "Great Silent Majority" feels its confidence shaken. All because of the Special Investigative Unit's legal strategy.

The public is concerned about the progress of Chen's investigation, prosecution, and trial. They are even more concerned about right and wrong. As long as the investigation, prosecution, and trial are conducted in a lawful and reasonable manner, the Special Investigative Unit ought to respond to public demands for justice. When the investigative process betrays the public trust and and undermines public confidence, what is this but a "miscarriage of justice?"

Investigators have been able to surround the center only by attacking the perimeter. The Special Investigative Unit must be discreet in its prosecutions. If they are determined to make a clean sweep, they may wind up prosecuting some cases too hastily, thereby allowing Chen Shui-bian to walk. The public looks forward to Chen Shui-bian's prompt prosecution. . It also expects to see more detailed investigations of separate cases.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Two major obstacles stand in the way of Chen Yunlin's visit. One. Will he apologize for the melamine contaminated milk incident? Two. Will he address Ma as Mr. President?

ARATS has already sent SEF a letter of apology for the contaminated milk incident. ARATS and the SEF have agreed to establish food safety measures. Tensions over the issue will ease. But a stickier issue remains. How will Chen Yunlin address President Ma?

When SEF and ARATS were originally created, the thinking was the two organizations would neither recognize nor repudiate the other. The two organizations would not recognize each other as belong to a nation or a government. They would instead, acting as intermediaries, refrain from repudiating each other and proceed to negotiate and resolve national and governmental matters.

This model has never led to disputes, at least until now, when Chen Yunlin is about to meet President Ma. One. When Jiang Zemin met Koo Chen-fu, or when Hu Jintao met Chiang Pin-kung, they were Party General Secretaries meeting with the Chairmen of SEF. Two. In fact, Koo Chen-fu and Chiang Pin-kung have no problem acknowledging leaders on the other side as "President." But Beijing, in order to avoid reciprocity with Taipei, does not greet visitors under the title of Secretary General. Three. In order to avoid controversy, visitors from the Mainland, including ARATS, have never set foot in ROC central government agencies or paid official visits to ROC central government officials. If Chen Yunlin meets President Ma, it will be for the first time, and he will be the first person to do so. Four. President Ma currently holds only one title -- president. Even if he were serving as party chairman, it would be inadvisable to meet Chen Yunlin in that capacity. After all, this is no longer a One Party State.

The issue has become controversial partly because of President Ma's missteps. In mid-June, the two sides announced a second Chiang/Chen Meeting, to be held in Taipei. The media immediately raised the issue of how Chen Yunlin would address President Ma. Reportedly, without going through his staffers, President Ma openly volunteered, for the first time, that Chen "can address me as Mr. Ma." Ma's remark provoked a number of reactions. One. The public had trouble accepting President Ma making concessions before negotiating. Two. The dispute has dragged on since June. During these four months, the issue has become a political football. Three. Ma's reference to "two regions" and the Green Camp's mocking reference to Ma as "Regional Governor Ma" have added fuel to the fire. Chen Yunlin's visit to President Ma has become the focus of a political struggle on the island. The two sides must use all their wisdom to deal with the problem.

This is a difficult problem for President Ma. It is also a difficult problem for Chen Yunlin. If Ma Ying-jeou is not "the Republic of China's leader," then why is Chen Yunlin meeting with him? Does it make sense for Chen to meet with Ma, but simultaneously refuse to recognize his status as "President of the Republic of China?" During Chen Yunlin's visit, the Office of the President of the Republic of China will be decked out with ROC national flags, as usual. The legislature will be in session, as usual. All levels of the court system will render legal judgments, as usual. Schools will teach, as usual. Opposition parties will hold protests everywhere, as usual. The Republic of China will not undergo any changes because of Chen Yunlin's visit. The public on Taiwan will naturally ask, why can't Chen Yunlin address Ma as President Ma? This is no longer a problem that can be solved by intermediaries such as SEF and ARATS.

There are two ways to approach this issue. One. President Ma can meet Chen Yunlin in his capacity as president. The Taiwan authorities' press releases will state that "President Ma met with Chen Yunlin." As long as Beijing does not protest, this may be regarded as significant progress in cross-strait relations. Two. How Chen Yunlin addresses Ma must be clearly determined. If Taipei and Beijing insist on their own positions, they may as well not meet.

It hinges upon Beijing's forbearance and vision. Seven months have passed since the March 22 presidential election. The cross-Strait climate has undergone dramatic, earth-shaking changes. Zhang Mingqing was recently assaulted. Beijing bit its tongue. The contaminated milk scandal erupted. Beijing offered a letter of apology. All of Beijing's actions reveal a desire not to undermine cross-Strait relations or the Chiang/Chen Meeting. Beijing's forbearance is not merely a display of short term self-control. Beijing is now aware of how difficult it is to maintain cross-Strait relations. The authorities on both sides agree on the general direction. Therefore the issue of how Chen Yunlin should address Ma YIng-jeou must not be allowed to undermine this agreement.

Beijing's thinking on Taiwan has changed. It has changed from "The Republic of China is dead!" to "We must maintain the status quo" and "We subscribe to the 1992 Consensus." The subtext of the 1992 Consensus is "One China, Different Interpretations." Beijing must realize that without the "Republic of China" the two sides cannot achieve win-win. Chen Yunlin need not meet with President Ma. But he must not hurt the feelings of the public on Taiwan.

Will the two sides use their heads and solve these problems? We will have to wait and see.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Chiang/Chen Meeting: The Meaning of the October 25 ProtestUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) A Translation October 28, 2008

On June 13 Chiang Ping-kuen and Chen Yunlin met in Beijing. They announced the commencement of weekend charter flights, with mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan. The Ma administration said its goal was three thousand visitors a day. Due to excessive restrictions, that goal has not been reached.

Even without such restrictions, they might not have been able to achieve three thousand visitors a day. But at least they would have experienced a significant surge in visitors, and the public on Taiwan might have gotten a taste of the possibilities of the administration's new policy. But mainland tourism to Taiwan has not had the anticipated effect, perhaps because Beijing was busy with the Olympics. The Ma administration's first shot misfired. Soon afterwards the political and economic situation rapidly deteriorated. Disappointment gradually changed the public's estimate of cross-Strait exchanges, and progress eventually came to a standstill.

Following the March 22 Presidential Election, Vice President-elect Vincent Siew seized the opportunity to participate in the Boao Forum on Hainan Island. This was followed by Lien Chan, Wu Po-hsiung, and Chiang Pin-kung visiting the mainland in rapid succession. The two sides announced the commencement of cross-Strait weekend charter flights and the arrival of mainland tourists on Taiwan. It was also agreed that the second Chiang/Chen Meeting would be held in Taipei in autumn. The Ma administration built up a considerable head of steam. No one imagined that Chen Yunlin would be greeted by cheering crowds tens of thousands strong. But neither did anyone expect it to become the hot potato it is today.

We have repeatedly stressed that Taiwan is a democracy. Cross-Strait policy must undergo the test of its democratic institutions. The two sides have arranged for a second Chiang/Chen Meeting. Cross-Strait policy entails peaceful negotiations. Nevertheless the Democratic Progressive Party objects to the Chiang/Chen Meeting. Tsai Ing-wen hopes Chen Yunlin will stay away. Wang Ting-yu shoved Zhang Mingqing to the ground. Chen Shui-bian is hoping to increase conflict. Maybe this constitutes another sort of cross-Strait policy. These two cross-Strait policies involve different kinds of thinking and different kinds of behavior. But they both must pass the test of Taiwan's democratic institutions. Only then will they represent public opinion and receive public support.

The demands set forth by the October 25 protest march have provided authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait insights into the public mood on Taiwan. The Chiang/Chen Meeting will establish exchange mechanisms. These include the expansion of weekend charter flights, chartered cargo flights, shorter, more direct flight paths, direct shipping, postal cooperation, and food safety measures. Yet the protestors made no mention of these important developments, because the Democratic Progressive Party can't make political hay from them. The public on Taiwan does not object to such provisions in the public interest. Instead the protestors stressed "national dignity," denounced "Regional Governor Ma," and wondered whether Chen Yunlin would address Ma as "President." They demanded "One Country on Each Side" and a "Nation of Taiwan." In fact, if one leaves Taiwan independence movement demands for a "Nation of Taiwan," a majority of the public shares their demand for "national dignity." Beijing has never responded appropriately to demands for "dignity." As a result, Taiwan independence still has a market.

The October 25 protest march has a message for the Chiang/Chen Meeting. One. Win/win cross-Strait policies must make win over peoples' hearts, and not just their minds. For example, mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan failed because there was plenty of thunder but very little rain. Two. Issues concerning Taiwan's "dignity" are of particular importance. Having witnessed the October 25 protest march, the Beijing authorities have a clearer sense of how obdurate Taiwan independence can be. How can one reunify such a Taiwan? How can one conduct cross-Strait relations without first maintaining the Republic of China's dignity?

Immediately after the assault against Zhang Mingqing, Beijing said the incident "would not affect cross-Strait relations," and "would not affect Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan." Such self-restraint deserves affirmation. Most remarkable of all was Zhang's response. "It was merely the extreme behavior of a very small number of people. It hardly represents the people of Tainan. Still less does it represent 23,000,000 people on Taiwan. " Zhang's mention of a majority vs. a minority involved other considerations. But it also showed respect for mainstream opinion on Taiwan. In this sense, the upcoming Chiang/Chen Meeting represents the future of cross-Strait negotiations. Beijing should not regard this as exclusively a dialogue between authorities, but as a dialogue with the public on Taiwan, even a dialogue with Taiwan's democratic institutions.

The Democratic Progressive Party has announced yet another protest march. It will hold an overnight vigil. It may even "shadow" Chen Yunlin. Antics such as these will embarrass both the host and the guest. But a few days of embarrassment are tolerable. This is a time to rethink the future. How can we create a win/win scenario? How should we respond to demands for "dignity" and to the majority preference for "neither unification nor independence?" Will the Chiang/Chen Meeting enable the public to accept the direction cross-Strait relations are taking?

Street protests in Taipei during the Chiang/Chen Meeting are a matter of appearances. The real historical judgement will be rendered by the majority on Taiwan. Authorities on both sides have made a concerted effort with the Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei. Yet their ability to touch the hearts of the public on Taiwan pales next to the internally divided Democratic Progressive Party. Why has it come to this? And what more can one say?

Monday, October 27, 2008

Talk to the Public from the Heart China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) A Translation October 27, 2008

History may or may not remember this day. But President Ma's response to the October 25 protest march should not be to "listen humbly with an open mind." His response should be to accurately assess the protest's significance. He must ask himself why a political party that was on the ropes only half a year ago, could gather so much momentum in so little time? Was it merely economic factors? To put it another way, did purely economic factors motivate so many Green Camp supporters to take to the streets?

On the eve of the October 10 protest march, President Ma reiterated his cross-Strait policy. His tone betrayed his unease. "We have done nothing but implement policies promoted by the Mainland Affairs Council during Tsai Ing-wen's term of office. So why are we being accused of surrendering to Beijing?" "Why is it a sin for me to do what the DPP approved of?" This is the most interesting part of it all. The very doubts and dissatisfactions President Ma expressed contain the answers to his questions. Sorry, but what Tsai Ing-wen may do, Ma Ying-jeou may not. One might say this amounts to a double standard. But amidst Taiwan's Blue vs. Green disputes over the years, what issue hasn't been subject to a double standard? Tsai Ing-wen can get away with practicing double standards because she represents an opposition party. President Ma, on the other hand, cannot accuse Tsai of practicing double standards, wipe his hands, and walk away. If Tsai chooses to rail against Ma, there is nothing Ma can do.

When summing up one's situation, one must never indulge in wishful thinking. The Democratic Progressive Party failed to realize that the assault against Zhang Mingqing, left unchecked, might get out of hand. The assault gathered momentum, and led to the October 25 protest march. The progression seemed perfectly natural. An embezzler was transformed into a hero. A thug was also transformed into a hero. Given the atmosphere that has been created, can we really expect the DPP to be civil toward Chen Yunlin when he arrives for his visit? Some commentators may be confused about the Green Camp's political maneuveurs. Aren't they afraid of being hijacked by Ah-bian? Aren't they afraid of being branded a "party of violence?" These are foolish questions. The DPP was born in violence, and lives for confronations. If it fails to rally the troops during Chen Yunlin's visit, what would happen of the party's morale?

President Ma need not await Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's reasoned response. Even assuming she wanted to, the party would not allow her to engage in rational debate with him. Tsai's offer of a debate is mere posturing. It is tantamount to a refusal to engage in dialogue. President Ma's highest priority should not be to debate Tsai Ing-wen, but to dialogue with the public on Taiwan. President Ma is proabably unaware that this is why lost public approval.

Everyone knows how diligently the Ma administration has been promoting cross-strait reconciliation since it took office on May 20. What the Democratic Progressive Party couldn't do in eight years, the Ma administration did in three months. Over the past eight years, the two sides have remained deadlocked, with swords drawn and arrows nocked. Under the Ma administration the people are finally out from under the Sword of Damocles. This ought to be considered one of the Ma administration's major triumphs. . Why has Ma allowed the Green Camp to condemn it as a "major crime?" This is the Ma administration's biggest blind spot. It has expended enormous energy and effort promoting cross-Strait dialogue. But it has neglected to dialogue with the public on Taiwan. This has allowed the Green Camp to take advantage of its oversight.

The Ma administration has long under-estimated the extent to which public opinion on Taiwan has changed. In the wake of Lee Teng-hui's "two states theory" and eight years of Chen Shui-bian's "one country, each side" "cross-Strait relations" no longer exist, only "cross-Strait issues." The term "cross-Strait" has been reduced to a means of mobilizing voters. After the Green Camp's eight years in power, not only has the public's state of mind changed, . so has its tastes. The Ma administration has been in office only a few months. Turning the clock back eight years overnight is easier said than done. The past eight years have destroyed cross-Strait relations. Cross-Strait relations is not the only thing that needs to be rehabilitated on Taiwan So does our society's conscience. The two are linked. If one pays attention to only one, and ignores the other, one will naturally be accused of "tilting toward China." To relax cross-Strait relations, but fail to deal with cross-Strait resentments, will inevitably lead to the scenario of October 25.

Cross-Strait relations have been trampled underfoot for eight years. Reconstruction cannot be rushed. The Democratic Progressive Party has already created an intense "anti-China sentiment." How can one possibly change it overnight? Over the past several years, the Beijing authorities have denied the Republic of China diplomatic breathing room and the opportunity to participate in international activities. The memory of the contaminated milk scandal is still fresh in the public's mind. This can only reinforce the negative image the public has of the Mainland authorities. Much of the problem is psychological and emotional. The Ma administration needs to realize how little effort it has put into psychological rehabilitation. President Ma has used legal terminology from law books to explain his cross-Strait policy. He probably doesn't realize he is further alienating himself from the public.

Fortunately, it is not too late. The solutions to many of Taiwan's recalcitrant problems, are not intellectual, but emotional. If President Ma fails to get a phone call from Tsai Ing-wen, it doesn't matter. What matters is that he continue to communicate with the public, from the heart.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Chen Shui-bian's Eight Year Web of Corruption
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2008
Tug on the loose threads in the Chen family money-laundering scandal, and they will lead to string upon string of collusion between corrupt officials and special interests. The most shocking aspect is not that money and power were in bed together, but just how sordid their methods were. They were no different from those of organized crime groups. During his eight year term, Chen Shui-bian essentially sold the government to the highest bidder. His flagrant corruption is far more despicable than his incompetent governance.

Former Bureau of Investigation Chief Yeh Sheng-mao and former Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien have both been arrested. The Chen Shui-bian regime's corruption has reached new lows. These two officials' roles in the scandals was merely to obey orders and run errands. They sold their souls to help the Chen family amass illicit wealth and conceal its criminal acts. Chen Shui-bian's eight year regime has trampled the nation's system of justice into the dust. It has trampled the nation's civil service system under its boot, hollowed out its democracy, and undermined the rule of law. The legitimacy of "nativist rule" has been undermined to boot. Sadly, the Democratic Progressive Party doesn't seem to give a damn.

Neither local construction firms nor vast financial syndicates have escaped Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's clutches. Once the presidential palace or the presidential residence got wind of either bidding on local construction contracts or major financial policy reforms, they immediately became into Chen family ATM machines. Just look at First Son Chen Chi-chung's wedding. Besides flagrantly misusing Air Force One, all their expenses were charged to the State Expenses Fund, under "Confidential Expenses." Worse still, they set up channels by which major business consortiums would give million dollar diamond rings and million dollar gifts of cash as "wedding gifts." Hold a wedding. Amass a fortune. The epithet "corrupt" is woefully adequate to encompass Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's insatiable appetite. The entire government has become a money machine for a family consumed by greed. How ironic when Chen Shui-bian's pet mantra is "Love for Taiwan!"

So far the money-laundering scandal has exposed only the tip of the iceberg. The tip of the iceberg is alarming enough. One can only imagine what the rest of the iceberg is like. In fact, judging by the frequency of the Chen regime's corruption scandals, this sort of bottom-up chain reaction is no accident. Corruption scandals at the Central Government level alone are already too numerous to count. Examples include Kuo Yao-chi, former Minister of Transportation and Communications, who has been sentenced to eight years in connection with the Taiwan Railway Taipei Station bid-rigging scandal. Former Interior Minister Yen Wan-chin has been sentenced to 12 years in the second instance in connection with the Peitou cable car scandal. Former Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Hou He-hsiung has been sentenced to 20 years for making sweetheart deals with flood control project contractors. Lin Chung-cheng has been sentenced to 16 years for his part in the Taiwan Development Corporation scandal. Additional scandals include the Department of Defense Taiwan Goals scandal, the PNG Ministry of Foreign Affairs scandal, and the Ministry of Finance "Second Financial Reform" scandal. One has to ask, is any ministry free from the stench of corruption?

Does the decadence and rot among Chen regime officials stem from DPP corruption? Or does it stem from the negative example set by Chen Shui-bian himself? The outside world has no way of knowing. But if Chen Shui-bian himself had not been so quick to descend into a mosh pit of corruption, if he still retained a shred of commitment to "reform," would he have sat back and watched as his lieutenants led his troops into the cesspool? Would he have opened a backdoor to his official residence for special interests?

Greed and corruption are two sides of the same coin. Only corruption is able to satisfy greed. Over the past eight years, there have been two presidential palaces on Taiwan. One is the Office of the President, located on Ketagalan Boulevard. The name on the door reads "Chen Shui-bian." It is responsible for policy. The other is the Underground Office of the President, located on Chongqing South Road. The name on the door reads "Wu Shu-cheng." She sets the prices. Wu Shu-cheng's greed could not be fulfilled without Chen Shui-bian's corruption. Of course, there would also be no money-laundering scandal today. Chen Shui-bian has harped endlessly on "reform." Wu Shu-chen has seized the opportunity to engage in wanton plunder. In the end, the entire family has been wound up in court. The myth of the Democratic Progressive Party "democratic reform" has also been swept into the garbage heap.

Chen Shui-bian has shouted "Transitional Justice" louder than anyone. But while he was waving one fist in the air demanding justice, his other hand was in the shadows, under the table, laundering money overseas. Chen Shui-bian is a master at political sleight of hand. He has led the public around by the nose until it is dizzy. In his eyes, the nation (guo) is merely a tool to amass wealth for his family (jia).

Over the past several months the public has seen a tiny corner of this vast web of corruption. This tiny glimpse alone has left it in shock. The latest revelation concerns millions, or even hundreds of millions deposited into the Chen family's overseas accounts by financial syndicates. When do judicial authorities intend to expose this vast web of corruption to the public?

Thursday, October 23, 2008

October 25: Chen Shui-bian's Stage, and the Democratic Progressive Party's Gallows? United Daily News editorial A Translation October 23, 2008

During the upcoming October 25 weekend protest march, the Democratic Progressive Party must address two issues. One. Internally, it must deal with Chen Shui-bian. Two. Externally, it must address cross-Strait policy.

The relationship between the DPP and Chen Shui-bian is certain to become even more tangled and contentious after the march. As for the DPP's cross-Strait policy, the march will send a message. That message is: Taiwan is becoming more regressive and violent. The United States, Mainland China, and the majority on Taiwan will feel even less confident about the island's future. The assault against Zhang Mingqing is merely a prelude.

During the August 30 protest march, the DPP temporarily shelved the Chen Shui-bian problem. But the march highlighted a harsh fact. The Taiwan independence movement has hijacked the Democratic Progressive Party. On October 25, the DPP will no longer be able to keep Chen Shui-bian down. The march will demonstrate how far the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy has regressed.

Let's look at cross-Strait policy. The Democratic Progressive Party is still unable to deal with the "swift rectification of names, the authoring of a new constitution," and the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." On the surface the march is protesting "poisoned milk" and "Territorial Governor Ma." But the Democratic Progressive Party and the Green Camp's holy grail remains a "Nation of Taiwan." The DPP has demanded that the Republic of China flag remain in place during Chen Yunlin's visit. But during the weekend demonstrations, it is unlikely we will see a single Republic of China flag. The Democratic Progressive Party complains that the Chinese Communist Party refuses to recognize the Republic of China. But the DPP has never forsaken its goal of overthrowing the Republic of China and founding a "Nation of Taiwan." How is the DPP any different from the CCP? People have been listening to the Democratic Progressive Party's spin on cross-Strait relations for 20 years. The defects in its logic no longer require comment. The public has no intention of listening to what the Democratic Progressive Party says. It intends to watch what the Democratic Progressive Party does. Will the public endorse the DPP's "Nation of Taiwan" merely because it is protesting "poisoned milk?"

The Democratic Progressive Party will be held hostage by the Taiwan independence movement during the current march, just as it was during the August 30 march. This time the hostage taker will be Chen Shui-bian. The main items on Chen Yunlin's agenda are direct shipping, Cargo charter flights, making the flight paths more direct, and food safety. The Democratic Progressive Party should address these issues regardless of whether it agrees with the current administration. But the DPP's primary issue is "poisoned milk." One should protest poisoned milk of course. But the Democratic Progressive Party is using the contaminated milk issue to repackage its "Nation of Taiwan" demands. It is dealing with the contaminated milk incident purely from the perspective of a "Nation of Taiwan." The United States understands this. Mainland China understands this. The public on Taiwan understands this.

If the Democratic Progressive Party takes to the streets this weekend and waves only "poisoned milk" banners, but does not dare to openly advocate a "Nation of Taiwan," the march will be even more of a losing proposition than the one on August 30.

Let's look at Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian was first to suggest holding this protest. Even the slogans, "Oppose Black-hearted Merchants, Defend Taiwan's Sovereignty" and "Ma Must Apologize. Liu Must Step Down, Chen Yunlin Must Not Come" were Chen Shui-bian's handiwork. Chen Shui-bian and the DPP seem to be engaged in a copyright dispute.

The DPP is unable to make a clean break with Chen Shui-bian, because it is unable to make a clean break with Taiwan independence. The DPP is now watching idly as Chen's brand of Taiwan independence becomes the "Official Brand of Taiwan Independence." In the dispute over who owns the rights to the brand "Taiwan independence," the DPP has already lost to Chen Shui-bian.

Chen Shui-bian has already confirmed that he will take part in the march. The DPP hopes he will either split off from the procession before it reaches Ketagelan Boulevard, or failing that, refrain from ascending to the podium to speak. Chen Shui-bian is unlikely to honor either of these demands. Chen Shui-bian does not consider his participation in the march a "favor" granted him by the march organizers. After all, these marches were the result of his struggles since August 30. He naturally intends to use the October 25 march to consolidate his power and expand his influence. Chen Shui-bian has vowed not to "fight for the right to speak." But what if his claque shrilly demands that he be allowed to speak? Chen Shui-bian has vowed not to "fight over the microphone." But what if his supporters thrust a microphone into his hand?

Besides, even assuming Chen Shui-bian does not ascend to the podium to speak, that doesn't means the DPP has succeeded in making a "soft break" with Ah-Bian. As long as Chen Shui-bian joins the procession, the Democratic Progressive Party will appear to have endorsed Chen's brand of Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian has already picked his next battlefield. He has publicly endorsed Chen Tang-shan's candidacy in next year's Tainan County Magistrate election. Once Chen Shui-bian is afforded the opportunity to endorse two or three DPP candidates for county magistrate or city mayor, what is to stop him from endorsing every DPP candidate? When that happens, the campaign booster who dominates the media spotlight will be Chen Shui-bian, not Tsai Ing-wen.

On the surface the march is an "Anti-China, Anti-Ma" march. In reality the march is an internecine power struggle between Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. It is a copyright dispute. By the time the march has ended, the Democratic Progressive Party will have confessed to the nation and the world that its is still a hostage to Taiwan independence, unable to exorcise the demon of Chen Shui-bian. The spectacle of the October 25 protest march will not disguise the reality of a life and death struggle between Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. The event may be Chen Shui-bian's stage, and the DPP's gallows.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Taiwan's Pride is Its Democracy, Not Its Fists
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 22, 2008

If within a democracy one holds divergent views, the normal response is petitions or protests. Assaulting someone for holding different beliefs is beyond the pale. Vice Chairman of ARATS Zhang Minqin recently arrived in Taiwan to attend an academic conference. He was repeatedly met with shrill protests along the way. He joked that the public on Taiwan was giving him an "especially warm welcome." Zhang demonstrated remarkable forbearance. Alas, local Democratic Progressive Party officials incited their supporters to subject him to relentless harassment. They went so far as to assault Zhang and stomp on the car he was traveling in, caving in the roof. Democratic Progressive Party leaders used shockingly caustic language, openly calling him "The Enemy." They even added that "Zhang was lucky to get off so lightly." Who knew Taiwan's democracy would come to this? Who knew that the Democratic Progressive Party, which was once the ruling party, would actually consider assault and battery righteous behavior?

Ever since the Democratic Progressive Party was founded, it has hated being referred to as "a party of violence." We do not believe that endlessly repeated "isolated incidents" of violence are the essence of the Democratic Progressive Party. But these incidents happen over and over again, and the leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party never intervene. Instead, they abet and even further incite them for selfish partisan interests. The October 25 protest march is right around the corner. How can leaders of any self-respecting political party tolerate such socially divisive demagoguery?

Ironically, Zhang was assaulted in front of the Confucian Temple in Tainan, the first Confucian Temple constructed in Taiwan. Is this what has become of Confucius' teachings? When the fighting broke out, a group of elementary school children were on a field visit. They were so terrified they hid. Has the Democratic Progressive Party given the slightest consideration to the example they are setting for our children? Democracy is about counting heads. It is not about using ones' fists. The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. Has it still not learned the meaning of democracy? Taiwan faces a vast Chinese mainland. Its advantage has never been bigger fists. Taiwan's advantage has always been its democracy. Underneath democracy lies civilization. When has a prosperous and sophisticated Taiwan society ever resorted to fisticuffs to achieve victory?

The DPP vehemently objects to the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy. It can protest the Ma administration's policies in the Legislative Yuan, or even on the streets. But Zhang Minqin came to Taiwan to attend an academic conference. It is absurd to use him as a punching bag. What else has the violence achieved, other than underscore the Democratic Progressive Party's barbarism? Does mindlessly trampling the image of Taiwan's democracy beneath one's boots count as "loving Taiwan?"

Democratic Progressive Party officials refuse to reign in their more fanatical grass roots supporters. They have the temerity to refer to a visiting guest as "The Enemy," and to assert that Zhang was "lucky to get off so lightly." The public on Taiwan may have differing views on whether the mainland is "The Enemy." But even two countries at war have rules about how envoys are treated. Besides, cross-strait reconciliation has been the norm for years. The two sides' competition for international recognition, can surely be conducted in a civilized manner. Even the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's scorched earth diplomacy only resorted to money, not artillery. Besides, the ice in the Taiwan Strait has been melting for some time now. After May 20, DPP Yunlin County Magistrate Su Chi-fen even visited the mainland to promote the sale of Taiwan fruit. Mainland authorities may not have rolled out the red carpet for Su, but at least he was received with civility and politeness. No one assaulted him or threatened him.

Is the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy is moving too quickly or too slowly? The political class, the business community, and the grass roots may hold different views. But cross-strait exchanges have become an irreversible trend. Just before Formosa Plastics Group founder Wang Yung-ching died, he said his greatest regret was that cross-strait policy change was painfully slow. It was falling far behind the business community's requirements for sustained global competitiveness. If not for former President Lee Teng-hui's "Patience, No Haste" policy, Taiwan's industrial development would likely have reached a new milestone. Cross-Strait exchanges during the latter part of the Lee Teng-hui administration and the eight years Chen Shui-bian was in power, endured over a decade of stagnation. During this decade or so, non-governmental cross-Strait exchanges continually progressed. Since taking office, the Ma administration has eased restrictions on cross-Straits exchanges. If the Ma administration fails to take action, the private sector is not about to sit on its hands. The Ma administration has yet to fully implement its policies. Does the Democratic Progressive Party really want the people on the two sides to perceive each other as enemies? Particularly when the community is looking to mainland tourists to boost Taiwan's economy? The Democratic Progressive Party supporters' have a peculiar concept of hospitality. It is to frighten away tourists, and thereby chase away Taiwan's economic recovery.

Has the Democratic Progressive Party learned nothing from its eight years in office? Rampant corruption and endless demagoguery is precisely why the public on Taiwan has rejected the Democratic Progressive Party. Over the past eight years, A Bian's demagoguery has increased communal strife to potentially irreversible levels. The Chen Shui-bian regime has stepped down. But the Chen Shui-bian family continues to elude justice. It is expanding its mobilization of Deep Green forces, and intensifying social polarization. It is openly betraying expectations the public once had for a local political party. The Democratic Progressive Party has fallen into a vicious cycle, becoming a "party of violence."

Over eight years ago, the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential election. It did not rely on its fists, but on its ideals. Today, the Democratic Progressive Party has lost power. But has it lost all its ideals as well? Demoralized individuals must pull themselves together. If the Democratic Progressive Party wants to stand straight once more, it must remember that Taiwan is a civilized society. Assaulting someone will not prove you are right. Hatred must not be permitted to spread. Come back to those who placed their faith in you. Transform the Democratic Progressive Party into a party of reason.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

President Ma Should Still Attempt to Attend APECChina Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)A Translation October 21, 2008

Summary: This year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting will be held in late November, in Lima, Peru. Several candidates are rumored to be President Ma Ying-jeou's choice of representative to the unofficial meeting of national leaders. But before he picks someone to represent him, President Ma should attempt to attend in person. Beijing has long hoped that Chen Yunlin, President of the Association for Relations Across the Straits, could come to Taiwan. Therefore it is makes sense for the leaders of the two sides to meet during the unofficial APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting. Such a meeting would contribute to cross-strait interactions, and deserves the Mainland authorities' careful consideration. The most important prerequisite to the development of cross-strait relations is learning to respect each other.

Full Text below:

This year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting will be held in late November, in Lima, Peru. Several candidates are rumored to be President Ma Ying-jeou's choice of representative to the unofficial meeting of national leaders. But before he picks someone to represent him, President Ma should attempt to attend in person.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization was established in 1991. In the organization's memorandum of understanding, agreed to by all the parties, the Mainland authorities stipulated that Taiwan authorities may send only ministerial-level or lower officials from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs may not attend. During the 1993 APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, the Mainland authorities asked that the restrictions in the Memorandum of Understanding be extended. Taiwan would not be allowed to send officials any higher than the Ministry of Economic Affairs to the meeting.

APEC is a quasi-government organization. In order to reduce political sensitivities and allow the two sides to participate, Member States are referred to as "economies." The Economic Leaders' Meeting is known as the "Informal Economic Leaders' Meeting." But over the years, the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting has become an important diplomatic venue for the heads of Asia-Pacific states and the United States. In fact, as Member States, the Taiwan authorities and the Mainland authorities are completely equal. Leaders of Member States are allowed to attend the summit in high style. Only the Republic of China's leaders are asked to specially designate a representative every year.

Only the President of the Republic of China may not attend. Even the president's special envoy must be kept to the level of Ministers of Economic Affairs and Ministers of Trade, or below. Officials on Taiwan have long been attempting to breakthrough to a higher level. They have been fighting unsuccessfully to allow the Vice Premier, the former Vice President, and the Chairman of the Legislature to attend. In attempts to break through the vague restrictions on political status, they have sent figures with obvious political colors, such as Senior Presidential Adviser Koo Chen-fu and Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tse. But such gestures are meaningful only on Taiwan. They have no impact whatsover on APEC's established practices.

Koo Chen-fu has passed away. Lee Yuan-tse is unwilling to participate. In recent years several corporate heads such as Lin Hsin-yi, Morris Chang, Stan Shih have served as the president's Special Envoys. Over the past decades, leaders on Taiwan have gotten no closer to the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting.

Since Ma Ying-jeou became president, cross-strait relations have eased. Ma's "Diplomatic Truce" has become his main policy. Rumor has it former Vice President and Honorary KMT Chairman Lien Chan may attend the APEC Leaders's Meeting on behalf of Ma Ying-jeou. Lien Chan has visited the mainland and established communications channels between the Kuomintang and the CCP. But his identity as a former Vice-President still poses a direct challenge to the framework the Mainland authorities have established for Taiwan. If the past is any indicator, the Mainland authorities will not allow Lien Chan to attend. In the end, the public on Taiwan will decide for itself how much "good will" the Mainland authorities are offering.

In the process of upholding our rights, interests, and equality, President Ma must not relinquish his struggle to attend in person. Even though attending is impossible, our president must make every effort to do so. According to precedent, APEC and the host nation will send a formal invitation to heads of state, They will send a special envoy to formally invite the President of the Republic of China to send a representative. They will even hold a number of back and forth discussions. They will show at least ritual respect. They will acknowledge that the President of the Republic of China has the right to full and equal representation, and that only realpolitik necessitates demeaning the Republic of China.

Even though it has yet to become a reality, APEC precedent has in fact repeatedly confirmed that the President of the Republic of China is eligible to attend the Economic Leaders' Meeting. Ma Ying-jeou has always aggressively sought to attend. Attempting to do so will help uphold the President of the Republic of China's right to attend. We must fight for our rights. If we fail to make an effort because we are overly concerned about cross-strait sensitivities, adverse consequences will follow. A future breakthrough will be more difficult. If the Mainland authorities acquire increased power to determine the Republic of China's international status, and if this authority appears to meet with Taiwan's approval, we must be aware of the political consequences.

Since taking office, President Ma has expressed goodwill toward the Mainland authorities. Beijing has also refrained from luring away Paraguay. But on the international stage the real returns have been slight, particularly with regards international organizations. Former American Institute in Taiwan Taipei Office Director Douglas Paal recently proposed that President Ma "find a title under which he may personally participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Economic Leaders Meeting. Over the next two or three years it is very likely to become a reality." This means that during the new era of cross-strait relations, Republic of China officials may make a breakthrough regarding participation in APEC activities. But it will not come without effort. President Ma may have a better chance than in the past.

Beijing has long hoped that Chen Yunlin, President of the Association for Relations Across the Straits, could come to Taiwan. Therefore it makes sense for the leaders of the two sides to meet during the unofficial APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting. Such a meeting would contribute to cross-strait interaction, and deserves the Mainland authorities' careful consideration. The most important prerequisite to the development of cross-strait relations is learning to respect each other.

Monday, October 20, 2008

For Those in Authority, Panic is an Unaffordable Luxury United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)A Translation October 20, 2008

Ma Ying-jeou has a frugal nature. When he invites foreign guests to lunch, they "brown bag" it. Ma Ying-jeou urges officials not to send flowers or gifts. When florists complain, putting him on the spot, he visits a shoe store and buys a new pair of shoes to stimulate the economy.

The Minister of Health set the legal limit for melamine at 2.5 ppm. But when the public complained, he lacked the courage to defend his policy, With a heavy heart, he stepped down. The current Minister of Health is unwilling to talk about legal limits. Instead he stages photo ops in which he eats bread to demonstrate its safety.

When the inheritance tax was reduced from 50 percent to 10 percent, it was branded a "tax cut for the rich." To mollify critics. the administration cut taxes across the board, benefiting the middle class as well. Now the criticism is "if everybody gets a tax cut, where's the government going get its money?"

This is the plight of the Ma administration. No matter what it does, it's wrong. The policy team finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. The more panicky it gets, the more mistakes it makes. The more mistakes it makes, the more it gets criticized. The more it gets criticized, the less confident it becomes. The less confident it becomes, the more panicky it gets.

During the five months Ma Ying-jeou has been in office, everything has gone wrong, mostly due to external factors. Natural disasters have struck one after another. Add to this global inflation and a once in a century global financial tidal wave, and countless nations find themselves in a state of crisis. Applying the same standards to all of them, then the hardship the public is experiencing cannot be blamed on Ma Ying-jeou. Nevertheless, the opposition DPP has chosen to oppose the ruling administration out of sheer orneriness. For example, the contaminated milk scandal was turned into an anti-Ma campaign. The DPP trotted out demagogic non sequiteurs such as "The lives of Taiwanese have less value than Chinese pigs." But when we learned that 2.5 ppm was the internationally recognized safety standard for melamine levels, the Democratic Progressive Party refused to utter a single "Sorry." Instead, Lin Fang-yu was forced to step down for no good reason. We live in an Age of Unreason.

That said, Ma Ying-jeou's elite team has not demonstrated a capacity to turn crises into opportunities. Instead it has revealed an embarrassing tendency to panic in the face of emergencies, and an extraordinary clumsiness in dealing with crises. It is always behind the curve. Its leadership style has failed to instill public confidence. Instead, it has lost the respect of the public. This group of officials, utterly lacking in self-confidence, has recently become even more panicky. When hard-nosed legislators asked whether officials who received poor approval ratings in the media should forgo their year-end bonuses, they merely hemmed and hawed. They looked like a bunch of Yes Men whose only question when asked to jump is "How high?" Is it really necessary for government officials to abase themselves like this?

The public often offers unsolicited advice to the Ma administration. It says the administration must improve communication with the public. But the administration remains trapped in the Myth of Public Opinion, constantly looking over its shoulder. Therefore we would like to offer the administration a few suggestions. One. Do not try to please everyone. Trying to please everyone and you will only wind up pleasing no one. The recent tax cuts are the best example, Cut this and you are criticized. Cut that and you are criticized. Cut this and that and you are criticized even more harshly. Meanwhile, governments the world over are somehow able to cut taxes.

Two. You must have the courage to do what's right. If it must be done, then do it. If you are in the right, then you must not waver. You must communicate with the public. In addition to acting in good faith, you must rule in accordance with the law. Authority must be supported by expertise. The contaminated milk scandal is a good example. After sacrificing Lin Fang-yu for no reason, the Ministry of Health still has not given us a clear account of events. Meanwhile, didn't Central Bank President Peng Huai-nang's proposal that foreign exchange reserves be used for a "sovereign fund" meet with public approval? Didn't the public praise his courage? This shows us the public is not entirely incapable of understanding reason.

Three. Because people are not entirely incapable of understanding reason, the right direction must be explained to them. One need not appease mobs. A Blue vs. Green standoff prevails on Taiwan. Every issue is polarized. If the administration wants to get things done, it must show determination. In the face of unwarranted verbal abuse such as "Taiwanese people are valued less than Chinese pigs," the administration's response must not be terrified silence. The Ministry of Education's response to demands that it restore the official name "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall" must not be to pass the buck to a "citizens forum." Otherwise why turn decision-making power over to you in the first place?

Four. Communicating with the public does not mean interfering with the media. Some of the Ma administration's behavior toward the media has been questionable. If officials clearly misspoke, the administration may not demand a retraction. Recent the China Broadcasting Company and Central News Agency have been careful to avoid accusations of featherbedding and interference in the freedom of the press. Those in power should not expect to be media darlings. Those in power have no right to expect the media to be "friendly."

Times are hard on those in power. Ma, Liu and other ivory tower intellectuals rule the nation. Now they realize how hard the job can be on the minds and bodies, and how thick the Fog of War can become. External factors cannot be controlled. One's leadership style however, is one's own responsibility. The policy team must act courageously, communicate effectively, and rebuild its credibility.

The "Wizard of Entrepreneurship" Wang Yung-ching is dead. Both the ruling and opposition parties are sincere in mourning his passing. The legend of Wang Yung-ching spans more than half a century, and parallels Taiwan's economic miracle. More importantly, Wang Yung-ching's ascetic personal style, along with his bold and aggressive business style, has become the model for Taiwan businesses. The verdict is that Wang Yung-ching was a Captain of Industry. More than that, he was a shining example for entrepreneurs everywhere.

This industrialist never had a moment's rest. Right up until the moment of his death, he traveled overseas conducting inspections of his business operations. Not one day of his 92 year life was wasted. At 16 he borrowed 200 NT to start his own rice business. At 38 he wrote to Minister of Economic Affairs Yin Chung, asking for permission to invest in the plastics industry. It was then that Taiwan's petrochemical industry took its first step. Today, the annual output of the Formosa Plastics Group is 2.6 trillion NT. It employs over 80,000 workers. Two hundred NT, transformed into two trillion NT. Wang Yung-ching is not merely a legendary individual. He is a symbol of Taiwan's miraculous transformation from an agricultural society into an industrial society.

Wang Yung-ching was dubbed the "Wizard of Entrepreneurship" many years ago. But the success enjoyed by Wang Yung-ching and the Formosa Plastics Group is not the result of luck. It is the result of Wang's tenacity and perseverance. This entrepreneur, who had only an elementary school education, was not satisfied merely with the success of his rice business and lumber business. He was not satisfied with the dominance of his plastics empire. He wanted to establish the world's most advanced industries, in petroleum distillation, medical technology, biotechnology, electronics, optoelectronics, semiconductors. He continually renewed the Formosa Plastics Group, advancing with the times, never falling from his position of leadership.

Wang Yung-ching's businesses were not immune to setbacks and failures. The Formosa Plastics automobile plant and the mainland China Haicang plan failed to pan out as expected. His Formosa Chemicals and Fiber Corporation was targeted by the environmental movement. His plans for an Ilan Litse plant were blocked. These setbacks reflected the tide and times businesses had to bear. Wang Yung-ching never evaded such problems. If the times presented him with problems, he welcomed the opportunity to solve them. In fact, that very wave of social reform inspired the Formosa Plastics Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant Project in Miaoli. It inspired his plan for green and organic crop cultivation. Taiwan's aging population inspired the creation of a "Health Village." The predictable energy shortage inspired the establishment of numerous gas turbine electrical cogeneration projects. Not all of these projects bore fruit, but they all reflected Wang Yung-ching's endless creativity and his vision of a brighter future.

Just a few days before Wang Yung-ching's death, a list of Taiwan's most profitable businesses was released. At the top of the list was the Formosa Plastics Group. This was not surprising. The "Four Jewels of the Formosa Plastics Group" have long been the most robust, dependable, and highest yielding of Taiwan's blue chip stocks. Among the top 10 money-making consortiums, the Formosa Plastics Group is the only industrial firm. The rest are financial holding companies. Formosa Plastics has maintained its position as an industrial firm. It has refused to be swept up by recent trends in the financial industry. This underscores Wang Yung-ching's pragmatic and responsible style, and his accurate business judgement. He has never allowed financial considerations to limit his business decisions. This sort of socially responsibile behavior has earned Wang Yung-ching the trust of the community.

During times wracked by endless political turmoil, the Formosa Plastics family seldom became involved in public disputes. During times of financial instability, the Formosa Plastics Group avoided stepping on any land mines. During times plagued by endemic corruption, the Formosa Plastics Group has never been involved in scandals. Wang Yung-ching has sustained the legend of Formosa Plastics for half a century. His secret was not merely extraordinary courage, clearer vision, or more accurate calculations. His secret was his determination to establish a rigorous and effective business ethic, to impose strict standards upon himself in his pursuit of profit. Contrast this with the questionable relationships between politicians and businessmen and the rampant corporate opportunism that prevails today.

Compared to Koo Chen-fu, Wang Yung-ching lacked literary refinement. Compared to Morris Chang, Wang Yung-ching lacked an international outlook. Compared to Terry Gou, Wang Yung-ching lacked the high roller's willingness roll the dice. But decade after decade, Wang Yung-ching was visionary without being utopian, pragmatic without being staid, decisive without being impulsive. This sort of integrity is the essence of Taiwan's entrepreneurial spirit. In a moving speech he warned his children: "Wealth is merely something society permits us to temporarily manage and put to proper use." For half a century, two generations of people have worked for the companies he established. His contribution to Taiwan's economy, is hardly limited to being the founder of the Formosa Plastics empire.

Wang Yung-ching was born in Xindian. He made his fortune in Chiayi. His investments straddle Taiwan and the rest of the world. He died in New York. He will be buried in Taipei. Wang Yung-ching was a legend who stands astride space and time. Mr. Wang Yung-ching is the Republic of China Industrialist who most deserves our respect. He earned it.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Tsai Ing-wen is the Chairperson of the Democratic Progressive Party, at what is unquestionably a watershed moment in history. Her central mission should be to lead the DPP out of the nightmare created by Chen Shui-bian. She must not allow the DPP to fall back into Chen Shui-bian's clutches.

Tsai Ing-wen herself said her goal was to create an "era without Chen Shui-bian" for the Democratic Progressive Party. Now however, the DPP is slipping out of Tsai Ing-wen's grasp. It is once again becoming Chen Shui-bian's hostage. Tsai Ing-wen was originally seen as the savior of the DPP. If she fails to live up to her historic mission, will she instead become the DPP's irredeemable sinner?

Tsai Ing-wen failed to set standards of right and wrong for the Democratic Progressive Party. She failed to make a clean break with Chen Shui-bian. Now Chen Shui-bian is billing himself as "Ma Ying-jeou's first political prisoner," as the "standard bearer for Taiwan independence," and the "founder of a Taiwan independence trust fund." He is joining the DPP's protest march against Chen Yunlin. The march has become Chen Shui-bian's political baptism. The Green camp will forgive his sins. It will grant him a special dispensation or amnesty. The march has become Chen Shui-bian's rehabilitation ceremony. Once again, he will again ascend to the throne, as the "Godfather of Taiwan independence" and the "spiritual leader of the DPP." Once that happens, the DPP will no longer be able to break with A Bian, in spirit or in practice. Even the DPP's provision that "if Chen is found guilty in the first instance, he will be expelled from the party" will not rid the DPP of Chen Shui-bian.

Some people within the Democratic Progressive Party are aware of the danger. Some want Chen Shui-bian to stay away from the march, "even if they have to get down on their knees and beg." Others suggest that if Chen Shui-bian joins the march, "he must not be allowed to ascend the podium." But who is willing to kneel before Chen Shui-bian? Will kneeling before Chen Shui-bian motivate him to give the DPP a break? Actually, for all intents and purposes, the DPP has been kneeling before Chen Shui-bian since March 22. It has been hoping for mercy. It has been hoping for a way out. Yet Chen Shui-bian has chosen to rest his boot on Tsai Ing-wen's neck and mock her as weak and incompetent. Tsai Ing-wen thinks politics is a duty and a calling. Chen Shui-bian thinks politics is a game of life and death.

Tsai Ing-wen has already become a victim of a domino effect she herself arranged. She failed to denounce Chen Shui-bian's greed and corruption when she had the chance. She failed to challenge Chen Shui-bian's claim to be the "standard-bearer for Taiwan independence." She was unable to repudiate Chen's claim as "standard-bearer for Taiwan independence" because she failed to establish a standard for right and wrong. She missed one opportunity after another to repudiate Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian took advantage of every opportunity she offered him. Eventually Huang Ching-ling created a scene at DPP Party Headquarters. The DPP Central Committee, having declared that "if Chen is found guilty in the first instance, he will be expelled from the party," was unable to refute Chen's brand of Taiwan independence, and had no excuse to prevent Chen Shui-bian from joining the march. If A Bian can join the protest march, why can't he shake hands with Tsai Ing-wen? If he can shake hands with Tsai Ing-wen, why can't he march beside her? If he can march beside her, why can't he speak from the same podium? If he can speak from the same podium, why can't he participate in the same candlelight vigil? How therefore, can this so-called 500,000 person mass movement not become a political baptism for Chen Shui-bian? How can it not become a rehabilitation ceremony for Chen Shui-bian, the alleged "standard-bearer for the Taiwan independence movement." Looking ahead to next year's County and Municipality Elections, who will stop Chen Shui-bian from ascending the podium and endorsing the DPP? Looking ahead, suppose Chen Shui-bian is found guilty in the first instance and sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison, but remains eligible to run for president? Chen opposed the DPP Committee for Clean Government's move to expel him in the event he is found guilty. Chen is unwilling to relinquish the possibility of running for re-election on behalf of the DPP. Looking forward, when Chen Shui-bian is found guilty in the third instance, can the DPP Central Committee forbid the masses to take to the streets to demand amnesty? Looking forward, if Chen Shui-bian is granted amnesty, won't he return to lead the DPP?

Tsai Ing-wen's historic mission is to create a Democratic Progressive Party that doesn't include Chen Shui-bian. Ironically, she has allowed the DPP to slip back into Chen Shui-bian's clutches. Actually, toward the end of President Chen Shui-bian term of office, Tsai Ing-wen had her own feelings about Chen and the DPP. The turned down a medal Chen Shui-bian presented in her honor. She turned down the SEF chairmanship. She turned down the position of Campaign Manager for the Hsieh/Su presidential ticket, Taipei City region. Also, when she was elected party chairman, her first thought was to "save the party by dumping A Bian." Who would have imagined she would wind up presiding over Chen Shui-bian's rehabilitation? Is Fate toying with Man? Or is Man creating his own Fate? Who knew it would come to this?

Tsai Ing-wen blundered, through a soft heart and a soft head. She mistakenly assumed Chen Shui-bian lacked the ability to destroy the Democratic Progressive Party, yet again. Chen Shui-bian wants to hijack the DPP, yet again. He wants to shatter Tsai Ing-wen's dream of "saving the party by dumping A Bian." If Tsai Ing-wen dares to lash back at Chen Shui-bian, she will be pelted with water bottles thrown by the mob. Tsai Ing-wen realizes she is no match for A Bian, the "Comeback Kid." Her conscience has been dulled; her sense of mission diluted. A terror that the mob will reject her is her overriding concern. As a result, during Chen Shui-bian's rehabilitation ceremony, Tsai Ing-wen might just earn that medal Chen Shui-bian tried to give her.

Visualize if you will, Tsai Ing-wen and Chen Shui-bian marching, side by side. Visualize if you will, Tsai Ing-wen and Chen Shui-bian maintaining a candlelight vigil, side by side. Now visualize Tsai Ing-wen marching with Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, side by side. Now visualize Tsai Ing-wen maintaining a candlelight vigil with Alberto Fujimori of Peru, side by side. Tsai Ing-wen, are you the same Tsai Ing-wen elected DPP Chairperson on May 18?

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Taiwan Must Not Be Dragged Down into the Whirlpool United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) A Translation October 15, 2008

Abroad, the global financial maelstrom rages. At home, suspicions of corruption surround the Chen family. Add to this a new administration unable to meet the public's expectations, and it's no surprise Taiwan's political scene is in chaos, and Taiwan's economy is in the doldrums. But leave international factors beyond our control aside for the moment. The public on Taiwan has always displayed both gumption and smarts. Is it truly incapable of working through these problems?

The political and economic situation on Taiwan is hardly what the public expected from the three month old Ma administration. The new administration's performance is far from satisfactory. But other factors also deserve our attention. One. The political atmosphere is permeated with nihilism. The ruling and opposition parties are caught in a never-ending tug of war. Politics is not only unable to solve peoples' problems. It has itself become the problem. Two. Political manipulation has bred public cynicism. People exchange abuse at the drop of a hat. They refuse to understand. They lack empathy. Cynicism breeds more cynicism, This breeds more intense anger and deeper depression. Three. The middle class feels alienated. Voices of reason and moderation cannot make themselves heard. Mutual trust is difficult to establish, making distorted values difficult to correct.

The current political scene reminds us of when the Democratic Progressive Party was not yet in power. A stalemate prevails between the ruling and opposition parties. The majority party lacks direction. The minority party uses violence and refuses to cooperate. Rational policymaking is nowhere to be found. The contaminated dairy products scandal is milked for all it is worth. DPP thugs go so far as to choke Yeh Chin-chuan by the neck. The DPP's only response to cross-Strait policy is "No!" Every day Chen Shui-bian visits the countryside and goad the mob into challenging the legal system. Taiwan now finds itself in a whirlpool, spiraling downward, unable to extricate itself. The residue of eight years of corruption from the Chen Shui-bian regime remains. If Taiwan reverts to the mistakes of the past, then weren't the past eight years of suffering all for nothing?

This downward spiral can only lead to Taiwan's death by suffocation. Compared to eight years ago, Taiwan has fewer economic options, less tolerance for "ethnic," i.e., cultural group, differences, more public discontent, less social cohesion, and less ability to solve political problems. Look in the mirror. Taiwan's image as a democracy is in tatters. Can the public possibly be content with the state of the nation?

Lest we forget, when Chen Shui-bian was elected president eight years ago, his slogan was "We must sink or swim." Not only did he not lead Taiwan into the light, his political corruption and moral degradation dragged Taiwan down along with him into the darkness. Chen Shui-bian has misused his authority to incite discontent among the masses, and intimidate the court system. The DPP may not have the guts to excommunicate A Bian. But are civic-minded individuals willing to countenance democracy and justice being trampled under his boot?

Taiwan's political atmosphere is permeated with nihilism. All the public can see is political calculation. Concern for the public interest is nowhere to be found. The Ma administration has been badly embarrassed. Yet it refuses to reshuffle its cabinet. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party's eight years of misconduct is clear for all to see. Yet it seems to think mocking the Ma administration at every opportunity will somehow prove its own virtue. Does the DPP consider the Ma administration's missteps some sort of moral victory? The Ma administration's open-door policy toward the mainland runs the risk of wishful thinking. But at least it is correct in its basic direction. By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party's categorical rejection of all contact with the mainland merely betrays its congenital atavism. Does the DPP think eight years of suffering under its Closed Door Policy wasn't enough?

In the long run, the Democratic Progressive Party must break with Chen Shui-bian. But even more importantly, it must rethink its original goals. Besides the pursuit of power, what remains of the DPP's democratic beliefs and moral principles? The progressive image the Democratic Progressive Party projected eight years ago no longer exists. The political appeals they made back then no longer move the electorate. The political momentum they commanded back then, has been reduced to anti-China and anti-Blue slogans. If the DPP is unable to offer anything new, if it merely follows the path of least resistance, who will follow in its footsteps?

Now that democracy has come to this, the public on Taiwan should have a deeper understanding of the nature of politics. The democracy peddled on the street is democracy on the cheap. A legislature incapable of solving problems has no greater claim to wisdom than any random passerby. Every four years, the public casts its vote. They have less chance of ending up with a satisfactory government than they have of winning the lottery. Citizens in the modern world must to be able to distinguish between good and evil, and must not allow politicians to lead them around by the nose. They must challenge themselves and transcend themselves. When the nation and society are in crisis, citizens must know where they stand and where they must go. They must reach out to others, and lend them their support.

The world is in chaos. The public on Taiwan has no cause for self-pity. We must awaken from our eight-year long nightmare. We must away the cold sweat. We must offer each other our support. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into the whirlpool.

About Me

Bevin Chu is a free market anarchist currently living in Taipei, China. His newest blog, An Enemy of the State, is his flagship blog. Articles from his previous flagship blog, The China Desk, have appeared at the wildly popular libertarian website LewRockwell.com, where Chu is a columnist/commentator; at Antiwar.com, the best known anti-war website on the Internet; and at the China Post, where he was a contributing editor. They have even appeared in Pravda -- the post Cold War, post Communist Pravda, of course.